An Epidemiological Study of ADHD,Substance Use,and Comorbid Problems in Incarcerated Women in Sweden

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of ADHD and psychiatric comorbidity, including substance use in incarcerated women. Method: This was a cross-sectional study, consisting of two parts: (a) screening using the ADHD Self-Rating Scale (ASRS) and (b) diagnostic assessment using a structured interview. Results: A sample of 96 incarcerated women was screened and 56 underwent the diagnostic assessment. Twenty-nine percent of the women met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) diagnostic criteria for adult ADHD in the diagnostic assessment. Forty-four of the women had misuse of alcohol, and 83% had misuse of narcotics the year prior to the incarceration. The ASRS showed sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity of 0.66. Conclusion: The prevalence rate of ADHD in incarcerated women was high and comparable to that in male offenders. Illicit stimulant use and antisocial personality disorder were significantly more common in women with ADHD. ASRS is useful as a screener in this population.

Keywords

ADHD women incarcerated comorbidity

ADHD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder that causes functional impairment in many different domains of life and leads to substantial suffering. The core symptoms of ADHD are age-inappropriate problems with inattention and hyperactive/impulsive behavior, in combination or separately. ADHD typically first appears in early childhood and by early adolescence and frequently co-occurs with other psychiatric disorders such as conduct disorder and substance use disorders (SUD). The presence of these co-occurring disorders, along with ADHD, clearly contributes to the risk for developing delinquent behavior. In a majority of cases, ADHD remains symptomatic into adulthood often combined with additional psychiatric disorders, such as personality disorders, SUD, as well as socioeconomic problems (Kessler et al., 2006; Kooij et al., 2010; Murphy & Barkley, 1996). A recent study by Gudjonsson et al. (2011) suggests that these disorders may serve as an important mediator between ADHD and criminal offending.

In the past decade, interest in the manifestations of ADHD in criminal offenders has been growing. Studies have shown a significantly earlier onset in criminality and a higher rate of recidivism in offenders with ADHD (Young et al., 2009, 2011).

In population-based studies, the estimated prevalence rates of adult ADHD, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) range from 1% to 7.3% with a pooled prevalence of 2.5% (95% confidence interval = [2.1, 3.1]; Simon et al., 2009). Several studies suggest a substantially higher prevalence of childhood and adult ADHD in incarcerated males (Eyestone & Howell, 1994; Rasmussen, Almvik, & Levander, 2001; Rosler et al., 2004; Young, 2009), compared with the general population (14%-45% vs. 4.4%; Kessler et al., 2006), as could be expected given the well-established link between ADHD and various types of antisocial behavior (Moffitt, 1990).

Most prior studies have reported on males with ADHD, and much less is known about the prevalence and correlates of ADHD in females, especially in forensic and prison populations. In a recent German study of 110 adult female offenders, with a mean age of 34 years, the prevalence of ADHD was estimated to be 10% (Rosler, Retz, Yaqoobi, Burg, & Retz-Junginger, 2009), largely consistent with the prevalence of 14.3% reported previously by Gunter et al. (2008). The childhood prevalence of ADHD in incarcerated women was estimated to be 45.8% using the Utah criteria (Wender, Wolf, & Wasserstein, 2001) that include problems with temperament and affective lability (Hennessey, Stein, Rosengard, Rose, & Clarke, 2010).

Thus, reported prevalence rates of adult ADHD in incarcerated women have been comparable to those in men, but the studies have been few, and a better understanding of ADHD in female offenders is required.

In the present study, we used the adult ADHD Self-Rating Scale (ASRS; Kessler et al., 2005) as a screening instrument. The ASRS was developed for the World Health Organization (WHO) and consists of 18 items based on the diagnostic criteria for ADHD in DSM-IV (APA, 1994). A short 6-item version of ASRS predicts the diagnosis of ADHD in the general population with a sensitivity of 68.7%, a specificity of 99.5%, and a total classification accuracy of 97.9%. Hitherto, no prior study has explored the validity of the ASRS screener in prison populations.

The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of ADHD in incarcerated women in Sweden. In addition, the study aimed to investigate the prevalence of substance use and other psychiatric disorders in this population, in conjunction with ADHD. This is important because high rates of comorbidity between ADHD and these psychiatric disorders have been strongly suggested (Biederman, 2005; Wilens, 2004). Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the usefulness and validity of the ASRS as a screening instrument in this population.

Method

Participants

At the time of the study, October 2008, a total of 264 women were registered in a database as serving a prison sentence in Swedish prisons (see flowchart in Figure 1.). Of these, 184 (69%) were physically present and eligible to participate. Those serving the last part of their prison sentence in a treatment home or for other related reasons not physically present at the time of the screening were not included in the sample.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of recruitment in the study.

Due to deficient skills in Swedish language, women who were to be extradited (n = 30) were excluded from the sample. An open site (n = 15) was excluded for practical reasons. The remaining 169 prisoners were invited to participate in the study, and 96 (57%) agreed to take part in the screening phase. Of these 96 screenings, 8 women were anonymous, 9 women were released before they could be interviewed, and 19 declined further participation for various reasons (e.g., feeling down, on leave, not interested). In the end, 60 women were included in the assessment phase, and 56 completed the full assessment.

There were no significant differences in the demographics including age, employment status, marital status, and housing (see Table 1) between women who participated only in the screening and those who also participated in the assessment phase. The participation was voluntary, and the participants did not receive any compensation.

Table 1.

Demographics, Preferred Substance of Use, Prevalence of Substance Use Problems and Psychiatric Disorders, IQ, and Their Covariance With ADHD.

		Comparisons between ADHD and non-ADHD
Variable	Full sample (n = 96)	ADHD (n = 16)	No ADHD (n = 40)	Fisher’s exact two-tailed
Demographics
Age	39.7	40.8	39.9	.587
Married/cohabitant	32.0%	19%	35%	.338
Works for living	17.7%	6%	20%	.248
Homeless	42.7%	56%	42%	.193
Age matched estimated IQ	89^a	87	89	.971
Alcohol use (AUDIT)
Harmful use (6-17 points)	21%	13%	20%	.710
Alcohol dependence (>18 points)	22%	33%	18%	.274
Use of illegal drugs (DUDIT)
Harmful use (>2-24 points)	23%	21%	28%	.735
Dependence (>25 points)	45%	71%	31%	.012
Preferred substance of use
Stimulants	57%	87%	43%	.016
Cannabis	40%	44%	38%	.765
Opiates	12%	13%	15%	1.0
Alcohol	33%	40%	30%	.752
MINI Plus
Alcohol abuse	40%^a	53%	33%	.235
Alcohol dependence	30%^a	44%	23%	.189
Drug dependence	30%^a	100%	58%	.001
Depression current	21%^a	25%	20%	.726
Depression, lifetime	44%^a	56%	38%	.249
Manic episode/hypomania	7%^a	13%	5%	.570
ASPD	45%^a	81%	30%	.001
SCID-II
BPD	18%^a	25%	15%	.448

Note: AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test; DUDIT = Drug Use Disorders Identification Test; MINI Plus = Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus; ASPD = antisocial personality disorder; SCID-II = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders; BPD = borderline personality disorder.

Based on the number of participants in the assessment phase (n = 56).

Design and Procedure

This cross-sectional study included two parts: a screening phase and an assessment phase. The screening phase included self-report questionnaires to measure ADHD symptoms, substance use, and demographic data. The interview phase assessed current and childhood ADHD symptoms and co-occurring psychiatric disorders.

The project staff visited five of the six Swedish prisons for women to inform and coach the staff in managing the screening phase. All eligible women were asked by the prison staff to participate and fill in the screening instruments. Exclusion criteria consisted of insufficient language skills or repatriation after served sentence. All participants signed an informed consent and were asked whether they agreed to be contacted for the interview. The participants were then to enclose the screening questionnaires in an envelope and seal the envelope. The interviews were performed by qualified professionals: either licensed clinical psychologists or psychologist in the last phase of their internship, employed at the regional addiction clinic, and experienced in the assessment of ADHD in individuals with SUD. The interviewers received the recommended training to administer the interview used at the assessment phase (Epstein & Kollins, 2006). In addition, to attain an interrater agreement, the interviewers met on several occasions in the course of the study to discuss diagnostic issues. The interviews were conducted within a 2-month period following the screening.

Screening phase

ADHD symptoms were assessed using the Swedish version of the 18-item ASRS questionnaire (Kessler et al., 2005). Each item assesses how often a symptom occurred during the past 6 months on a 0 to 4 scale with responses of never (0), seldom/rarely (1), sometimes (2), often (3), and very often (4). In line with DSM-IV, 9 of the items in the ASRS reflect inattention symptoms and 9 items reflect symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity. If the sum score for one of the two scales is <17, then ADHD is unlikely, and a score ≥24 indicates highly probable ADHD. The 6-item screener of ASRS includes 4 items of inattention and 2 items of hyperactivity/impulsivity. A patient screens positive for ADHD if he or she answers four or more of the questions within predesignated ranges: “sometimes” to “very often” on the first 3 items and “often” to “very often” on the next 3 items.

Alcohol consumption was measured using the Swedish version of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT; Bergman & Kallmen, 2002; Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993). AUDIT is designed to evaluate risky levels of alcohol use using items that assess frequency, degree of consumption (measured as glasses of alcohol), and risky behavior. The instrument consists of 10 items about alcohol consumption, symptoms of addiction, and harmful consumption (range = 0-40). For women, a total AUDIT scale score ≥18 indicates likelihood of dependence, whereas a score >6 indicates harmful consumption.

Drug use was measured using the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT; Berman, Bergman, Palmstierna, & Schlyter, 2005), which is an 11-item questionnaire designed to assess consumption patterns of illicit drugs and problems related to drug use (range = 0-44). For women, a total score >25 indicates SUD/substance use dependency, whereas a score >2 indicates drug-related problems. The DUDIT >25 cutoff has found to show a 90% sensitivity for a DSM-IV and for an International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) diagnosis of SUD (of illicit substances). The participants were asked to rate their consumption in AUDIT and DUDIT during the 12-month period prior to incarceration.

The participants also filled out a short questionnaire on demographics, prior diagnoses and/or treatment with ADHD, substance use, and the preferred substance (alcohol, stimulants, opiates, and cannabis).

Assessment phase

Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID; Epstein & Kollins, 2006), a semistructured interview, was used as the gold standard. The CAADID interview is divided into two parts. In Part I, information on demographic history, developmental course, ADHD risk factors, and psychopathology are collected. Part I is usually filled out by the participant but can be used as an interview, as was the case in this study. Part II of the interview is administered by a trained clinician and designed to evaluate the first four DSM-IV ADHD criteria: present ADHD symptoms (Criterion A), age of onset of the ADHD symptoms (Criterion B), pervasiveness of the symptoms (Criterion C), and impairment caused by the symptoms during childhood and adulthood (Criterion D). For each symptom, the interview contains examples of typical behavior associated with that symptom in adulthood and in childhood. The interviewer rates whether each symptom is present or absent.

The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) Plus psychiatric interview (Sheehan et al., 1998) was used to assess prior or current episodes of mood disorders (current and lifetime depression, manic episode/hypomania), SUD, and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), whereas the Semi-Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) was used to assess borderline personality disorder (BPD). As the women had been incarcerated for varying length of time, substance use in lifetime is reported instead of current use.

To explore whether inattention symptoms were associated with severe learning difficulties instead of ADHD per se, we also included assessments of IQ based on two tests (Vocabulary and Block Design) from Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III (WAIS-III; Ringe, Saine, Lacritz, Hynan, & Munro Cullum, 2002; Wechsler, 1997).

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS v. 17 and 18. Analyses used were chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. For all analyses, p > .05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

ADHD Prevalence

Fifty-one percent of the total sample (M = 38 years) screened positive for ADHD according to the ASRS 6-item screener. Using the full 18-item version of the ASRS, 45% of the women fulfilled criteria for “highly probable ADHD”; that is, having a score ≥24 in either the inattentive or the hyperactive-impulsive symptom dimension. A majority (53%) of those with “highly probable ADHD” showed elevated scores in both symptom dimensions, whereas 35% showed high scores only in the inattentive dimension and 12% only in the hyperactive-impulsive dimension.

Of the 56 women (M = 39 years) who participated in the assessment phase, 16 (29%) fulfilled DSM-IV criteria for persistent ADHD in the CAADID interview (see Table 2). Of these16 women, 11 met criteria for the combined subtype of ADHD (69%), 3 met criteria for the primarily inattentive subtype (19%), 1 (6%) met criteria for the primarily hyperactive-impulsive subtype, and 1 met criteria for the combined subtype but had later symptom onset (at 10). One additional person fulfilled the criteria for childhood ADHD but not for adult ADHD (four of the nine symptoms of attention problems).

Table 2.

ADHD Prevalence at Screening (Self-Rated Symptoms in ASRS) and After Full Assessment (CAADID Interview) for Total Screened Sample and Those Interviewed.

ADHD measures	Screening only (n = 40)	Full assessment (n = 56)
ASRS 6-item screener
Screen positive (4/6-item Part A)	51%	53%
ASRS 18-item screener
Highly probable ADHD	45%	43%
CAADID adult ADHD	NA	29%
Combined subtype	NA	20%
Inattentive subtype	NA	5%
Hyperactive-impulsive subtype	NA	2%
NOS	NA	2%

Note: ASRS = ADHD Self-Rating Scale; CAADID = Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV; NOS = not otherwise specified (symptom debut after age of 7).

SUD and Other Psychiatric Disorders

The first column of Table 1 shows the prevalence of substance use problems and psychiatric disorders in the full-screening sample. As can be seen, 43% of the women reported harmful use of alcohol (21%) or alcohol dependence (22%) according to the AUDIT scale and 68% showed harmful use of narcotics (23%) and drug dependence (45%) according to the DUDIT scale. In total, 79% of the 96 women had scores indicating SUD on the AUDIT (i.e., >18 points) or the DUDIT (i.e., >25 points) and 58% had results indicating either dependence of alcohol or narcotics. Co-occurring alcohol use disorder and drug use disorder were found in 12% of the women (data not shown). According to the MINI Plus psychiatric interview, 40% of the participants in the assessment phase (n = 56) fulfilled criteria for alcohol dependence during lifetime, whereas the corresponding number for dependence of illegal drugs (stimulants and cannabis being the most frequently used illegal substances) was estimated as 30%.

A large number of the participants in the assessment phase fulfilled criteria for other psychiatric disorders. For example, a diagnosis of current depression was present in 21% of the women, whereas the prevalence of ASPD was estimated as 45%.

Table 1 compares the prevalence of substance use problems and psychiatric disorders in ADHD and non-ADHD cases. In particular, drug dependence was significantly more common in the ADHD cases (100%) compared with the non-ADHD cases (56%). All but one of the ADHD cases with co-occurring drug dependence showed preference for amphetamine. Significantly more women in the ADHD group (81%) met diagnostic criteria for ASPD compared with the non-ADHD group (30%). In general, women with ADHD showed higher rates of substance use problems and co-occurring psychiatric disorders compared with women without ADHD, but all these comparisons failed to reach the level of statistical significance possibly due to the small sample size. For example, manic episodes/hypomania was substantially more common among ADHD cases (13%) than in the non-ADHD group (5%); likewise, the BPD was more common among ADHD cases (25%) compared with non-ADHD cases (15%); however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Validity of the ASRS

The ASRS 6-item screener generated a sensitivity of 1.0, a specificity of 0.66, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.55, and a negative predictive value of 1.0.

The full 18-item ASRS generated a lower specificity (0.45) and a lower PPV (0.42) when the “highly probable ADHD” definition (i.e., having a score ≥24 in either the inattentive or the hyperactive-impulsive symptom dimension) was used.

Discussion

The estimated prevalence of adult ADHD was much higher (29%) in the present sample of incarcerated women compared with the estimated prevalence of 4.4% in general population. This is consistent with the results from prior cross-sectional studies of adult offenders (e.g., Gunter et al., 2008; Retz & Rosler, 2010) and of juvenile offenders a (Fazel, Doll, & Langstrom, 2008). Childhood prevalence of ADHD in the present study was similar to prevalence rate presented in the German study by Rosler et al. (2009; 30% vs. 24%, respectively). However, there is some discrepancy in the results concerning the prevalence of ADHD in adulthood, between the two studies. Rosler et al. (2009) found a 10% prevalence of persisting ADHD in female offenders at the (M) age of 34 years, a higher prevalence of 17.9% in young female offenders 19 to 25 years of age, and no cases of persisting ADHD in women above 40 years. In contrast, the present study found an ADHD prevalence of 29% in females aged 19 to 59 years (M = 39 years) and no significant difference in prevalence rates between the corresponding age groups; nine of the ADHD cases were 40 years or older (the oldest being 57 years). This discrepancy is intriguing as both studies used DSM-IV criteria and clinically structured (but different) interviews to assess ADHD. First, the use of different interview instruments can be a part of the explanation as the DSM-IV ADHD diagnostic criteria are based on childhood symptoms and need to be interpreted into adult behavior. Second, issues related to the differences in national criminal justice systems such as the type of offenses that lead to imprisonment is another possible explanation. However, apart from the age-related discrepancy discussed earlier, the results of the current study are in line with prior research.

A recent Swedish study (Edvinsson, Bingefors, Lindström, & Lewander, 2010) reported an ADHD prevalence of 50% based on self-ratings, corresponding closely to our finding (49%) using the ASRS 6-item screener. Screening based on self-rating typically yields higher prevalence rates compared with more thorough assessments using clinical interviews, a diagnostic procedure recommended by experts in the field (Mariani & Levin, 2007; Nutt et al., 2007; S. J. Young, Adamou, et al., 2011).

The ADHD combined type was the most common subtype in the current sample, a finding that has been reported in prior studies of female and male offenders (Ginsberg, Hirvikoski, & Lindefors, 2010; Rosler et al., 2004, 2009), by contrast to population-based studies that most often report higher rates of the primary inattentive type (Kessler et al., 2006).This finding concurs with earlier research linking impulsivity with SUD, ASPD, and criminality (Biederman, 2005; Disney, Elkins, McGue, & Iacono, 1999). Our results also support the well-established link between ADHD and SUD (Biederman et al., 1997; Carroll & Rounsaville, 1993; Wilens, Biederman, & Mick, 1998; Wilens, Biederman, Mick, Faraone, & Spencer, 1997). Significantly more women in ADHD group compared with non-ADHD group had results indicating dependence on illicit drugs (using MINI Plus).

In the present study, all but one of the women with ADHD met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for DUD, this result is similar to observations in other studies on female offenders (Hennessey et al., 2010; Rosler et al., 2009). Interestingly, stimulant (mainly amphetamine) dependence was significantly more common in ADHD group compared with non-ADHD group, which is consistent with a study by Rosler et al. (2009) that reported significantly higher rate of stimulant use in female compared with male offenders. These results may suggest a possible element of self-medication with stimulants in the substance use of these female offenders. However, many reasons affect the choice of a substance of use: availability of drugs being an important factor.

Rates of psychiatric disorders are substantially higher in female and male offenders than in the general population (Coolidge, Marle, Van Horn, & Segal, 2011; Gunn, Maden, & Swinton, 1991; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996). Results from a prior study suggest that adult female offenders with ADHD show (compared with female offenders without ADHD) elevated rates of mood and anxiety disorders, BPD, and suicide risk (Westmoreland et al., 2010). By contrast, the present study did not find a significant difference in mood disorders or in BPD between ADHD cases and the non-ADHD cases, possibly due to the small sample size. However, in line with previous research, we observed a strong link between ADHD and ASPD (Biederman et al., 1995; Mannuzza et al., 1998; Murphy & Barkley, 1996), as significantly more women with ADHD met diagnostic criteria for ASPD in our study.

Our results indicate that the 6-item ASRS can be useful as a screening tool in female offenders. The results reported in this study show higher sensitivity than in general population (100% vs. 68.7%) but lower specificity (62.0% vs. 99.5%) similar to those reported in a recent Spanish study in a substance use population (Daigre Blanco et al., 2009; sensitivity: 100% vs. 87.5%, specificity: 66.0% vs. 68.6%), a result that may be expected given the high co-occurrence of SUD in prison population. In a study of 1,064 adults enrolled to a residential treatment facility for substance use treatment, the ASRS screener sensitivity and specificity were estimated as 100% and 96.1%, respectively (Adler, Guida, Irons, Rotrosen, & O’Donnell, 2009), with a PPV of 57.6% similar to our finding (PPV = 55.0%).

The full 18-item ASRS demonstrated sensitivity similar to that of the 6-item screening version but a lower specificity (45.0%), and also a lower PPV (0.42). In conclusion, our results support the utility of the 6-item ASRS to screen for ADHD in this population but indicate that a more careful assessment is required to obtain a correct diagnosis as the screener lacks the specificity to distinguish ADHD from other psychiatric disorders and substance use in this population. Furthermore, the potential role of chronic and severe substance use in the induction for screening and maintenance of ADHD symptoms needs to be investigated.

Collectively our findings highlight the importance of detecting ADHD in this high-risk population bearing in mind that ADHD is a disabling but also, to a high degree, a treatable disorder. Prisoners with ADHD account for more aggressive incidents than other prisoners, more than those with ASPD (Young, 2009). Efficient treatment strategies that take to account ADHD symptoms could enable the offenders to utilize the psychosocial treatment programs provided in prison. Recently, promising results have been reported from a medication trial in male inmates with ADHD (Ginsberg & Lindefors, 2012) and on psychosocial treatment program in adults with ADHD and severe personality disorders in forensic setting (Young et al., 2012).

Limitations

The results of the present study should be interpreted bearing in mind several limitations. First, due to the small sample, we had a limited power to detect significant differences between ADHD cases and the non-ADHD group, and the results should be considered as exploratory. Second, even if we aimed to generate a representative cross-sectional sample by including all Swedish, medium- and high-security female prisons, the response rate was relatively low (57%), indicating that a selection bias cannot be ruled out entirely. It should, however, be noted that that the participants included in the screening phase only and those involved in the screening and interview phases were comparable in the screening results, suggesting a random rather than a selective attrition. Third, we lack information regarding the interrater reliability of the diagnostic interviews.

Conclusion

ADHD is a common psychiatric disorder in female prisoners, and our results indicate that as many as one in three can be affected. ADHD is a treatable condition, and possible benefits of treatment during and after incarceration deserve more attention. Untreated ADHD is a disabling condition that affects every day functioning and thus could have a negative impact on participation in treatment programs available in prison. Our results suggest that the ASRS 1.v.1. (6-item ASRS) is a useful screening instrument even in prison populations. It is important to bear in mind that a positive screening result should be followed by careful diagnostic procedure to validate the diagnosis.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Swedish Prison and Probation Service.

Author Biographies

Maija Konstenius, MSc, is a doctoral student at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden and a clinical psychologist the Stockholm Centre for Dependency Disorders. Her areas of research and clinical work include ADHD and substance use disorders. She is also part of the International Collaboration of ADHD and Substance Abuse (ICASA).

Henrik Larsson, PhD, is associate professor of epidemiology at Karolinska Institutet. His current research mainly involves genetically-sensitive studies of ADHD and co-occurring conditions.

Lena Lundholm is a licenced psychologist and PhD-student at Uppsala University. She is working at the Swedish Prison and Probation Service: Research and Development Unit. Her area of research and clinical work include substance abuse, criminality and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Björn Philips, PhD, is a psychologist and psychotherapist with clinical experience from working with psychiatric patients and substance use disorder patients. At present he holds positions as lecturer at Linköping University and adjunct lecturer at Karolinska Institutet. His main research focus is psychotherapy process and outcome.

Geurt van de Glind, MSc, has a background as a mental Health Nurse in addiction treatment. He is currently a research associate at the Trimbos-institute in Netherlands and a director of the International Collaboration on ADHD and Substance Abuse (ICASA Foundation).

Nitya Jayaram-Lindström, MSc PhD, is a clinical psychologist and a Junior Research Associate at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Her areas of research interest include evaluating new treatments for substance use disorders such as amphetamine and alcohol dependence using human laboratory studies and imaging as research methods.

Johan Franck, MD, PhD is a director of the Stockholm Centre for Dependency Disorders and Professor of Psychiatry Addiction, at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. His research area over the past twenty years has been evaluating novel pharmacological treatments for alcohol and amphetamine dependence, and also treatment for co-morbid ADHD and substance dependence.

References

Adler

L. A.

Guida

Irons

Rotrosen

O’Donnell

(2009). Screening and imputed prevalence of ADHD in adult patients with comorbid substance use disorder at a residential treatment facility. Postgraduate Medicine, 121(5), 7-10.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bergman

Kallmen

(2002). Alcohol use among Swedes and a psychometric evaluation of the alcohol use disorders identification test. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 37, 245-251.

Berman

A. H.

Bergman

Palmstierna

Schlyter

(2005). Evaluation of the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample. European Addiction Research, 11, 22-31.

Biederman

(2005). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A selective overview. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1215-1220.

Biederman

Wilens

Mick

Faraone

S. V.

Weber

Curtis

. . . Soriano

(1997). Is ADHD a risk factor for psychoactive substance use disorders? Findings from a four-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 21-29.

Biederman

Wilens

Mick

Milberger

Spencer

T. J.

Faraone

S. V.

(1995). Psychoactive substance use disorders in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Effects of ADHD and psychiatric comorbidity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1652-1658.

Carroll

K. M.

Rounsaville

B. J.

(1993). History and significance of childhood attention deficit disorder in treatment-seeking cocaine abusers. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34, 75-82.

Coolidge

F. L.

Marle

P. D.

Van Horn

S. A.

Segal

D. L.

(2011). Clinical syndromes, personality disorders, and neurocognitive differences in male and female inmates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 741-751.

10.

Daigre Blanco

Ramos-Quiroga

J. A.

Valero

Bosch

Roncero

Gonzalvo

Nogueira

(2009). Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) symptom checklist in patients with substance use disorders. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 37, 299-305.

11.

Disney

E. R.

Elkins

I. J.

McGue

Iacono

W. G.

(1999). Effects of ADHD, conduct disorder, and gender on substance use and abuse in adolescence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1515-1521.

12.

Edvinsson

Bingefors

Lindström

Lewander

(2010). ADHD-related symptoms among adults in out-patient psychiatry and female prison inmates as compared with the general population. Uppsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 115(1), 30-40.

13.

Epstein

J. N.

Kollins

S. H.

(2006). Psychometric properties of an adult ADHD diagnostic interview. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 504-514.

14.

Eyestone

L. L.

Howell

R. J.

(1994). An epidemiological study of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and major depression in a male prison population. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 22, 181-193.

15.

Fazel

Doll

Langstrom

(2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1010-1019.

16.

First

M. B.

Gibbon

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B. W.

Benjamin

L. S.

(1997). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

17.

Ginsberg

Hirvikoski

Lindefors

(2010). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among longer-term prison inmates is a prevalent, persistent and disabling disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 112.

18.

Ginsberg

Lindefors

(2012). Methylphenidate treatment of adult male prison inmates with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with open-label extension. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 68-73.

19.

Gudjonsson

G. H.

Wells

Young

(2011). Motivation for offending among prisoners and the relationship with Axis I and Axis II disorders and ADHD symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 64-68.

20.

Gunn

Maden

Swinton

(1991). Treatment needs of prisoners with psychiatric disorders. British Medical Journal, 303, 338-341.

21.

Gunter

T. D.

Arndt

Wenman

Allen

Loveless

Sieleni

Black

D. W.

(2008). Frequency of mental and addictive disorders among 320 men and women entering the Iowa prison system: Use of the MINI-Plus. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 27-34.

22.

Hennessey

K. A.

Stein

M. D.

Rosengard

Rose

J. S.

Clarke

J. G.

(2010). Childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, substance use, and adult functioning among incarcerated women. Journal of Attention Disorders, 14, 273-280.

23.

Kessler

R. C.

Adler

Ames

Demler

Faraone

Hiripi

. . . Walters

E. E.

(2005). The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 35, 245-256.

24.

Kessler

R. C.

Adler

Barkley

Biederman

Conners

C. K.

Demler

. . . Zaslavsky

A. M.

(2006). The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 716-723.

25.

Kooij

S. J.

Bejerot

Blackwell

Caci

Casas-Brugué

Carpentier

P. J.

. . . Asherson

(2010). European consensus statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD: The European Network Adult ADHD. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 67.

26.

Mannuzza

Klein

R. G.

Bessler

Malloy

LaPadula

(1998). Adult psychiatric status of hyperactive boys grown up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 493-498.

27.

Mariani

J. J.

Levin

F. R.

(2007). Treatment strategies for co-occurring ADHD and substance use disorders. American Journal on Addictions, 16(Suppl. 1), 45-54; quiz 55-56.

28.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorder: Boys’ developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15. Child Development, 61, 893-910.

29.

Murphy

Barkley

R. A.

(1996). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder adults: Comorbidities and adaptive impairments. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 37, 393-401.

30.

Nutt

D. J.

Fone

Asherson

Bramble

Hill

Matthews

Morris

K. A.

. . . Young

(2007). Evidence-based guide-lines for management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adolescents in transition to adult services and in adults: Recommendations from the British association for psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 21, 10-41.

31.

Rasmussen

Almvik

Levander

(2001). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reading disability, and personality disorders in a prison population. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 186-193.

32.

Retz

Rosler

(2010). Association of ADHD with reactive and proactive violent behaviour in a forensic population. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 2, 195-202.

33.

Ringe

W. K.

Saine

K. C.

Lacritz

L. H.

Hynan

L. S.

Munro Cullum

(2002). Dyadic short forms of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III. Assessment, 9, 254-260.

34.

Rosler

Retz

Retz-Junginger

Hengesch

Schneider

Supprian

. . . Thome

(2004). Prevalence of attention deficit-/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid disorders in young male prison inmates. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 254, 365-371.

35.

Rosler

Retz

Yaqoobi

Burg

Retz-Junginger

(2009). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in female offenders: Prevalence, psychiatric comorbidity and psychosocial implications. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 259, 98-105.

36.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption–II. Addiction, 88, 791-804.

37.

Sheehan

D. V.

Lecrubier

Sheehan

K. H.

Amorim

Janavs

Weiller

. . . Dunbar

G. C.

(1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(Suppl. 20):22-33; quiz 34-57.

38.

Simon

Czobor

Bálint

Mészáros

Bitter

(2009). Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 194, 204-211.

39.

Teplin

L. A.

Abram

K. M.

McClelland

G. M.

(1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. I. Pretrial jail detainees. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 505-512.

40.

Wechsler

(1997). WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

41.

Wender

P. H.

Wolf

L. E.

Wasserstein

(2001). Adults with ADHD. An overview. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 931, 1-16.

42.

Westmoreland

Gunter

Loveless

Allen

Sieleni

Black

D. W.

(2010). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in men and women newly committed to prison: Clinical characteristics, psychiatric comorbidity, and quality of life. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 361-377.

43.

Wilens

T. E.

(2004). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the substance use disorders: The nature of the relationship, subtypes at risk, and treatment issues. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 27, 283-301.

44.

Wilens

T. E.

Biederman

Mick

(1998). Does ADHD affect the course of substance abuse? Findings from a sample of adults with and without ADHD. American Journal on Addictions, 7, 156-163.

45.

Young

S. J.

Adamou

Bolea

Gudjonsson

Müller

Pitts

. . . Asherson

(2011). The identification and management of ADHD offenders within the criminal justice system: A consensus statement from the UK Adult ADHD Network and criminal justice agencies. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 32.

46.

Young

Gudjonsson

Wells

Asherson

Theobald

Oliver

. . . Mooney

(2009). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and critical incidents in a Scottish prison population. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 265-269.

47.

Young

Hopkin

Perkins

Farr

Doidge

Gudjonsson

(2012). A Controlled Trial of a Cognitive Skills Program for Personality-Disordered Offenders. Journal of Attention Disorders.

48.

Young

Wells

Gudjonsson

G. H.

(2011). Predictors of offending among prisoners: The role of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and substance use. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25, 1524-1532.